Faf Read

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies read-only behavior ("Read") and discloses what is returned, but says nothing about failure modes (missing file, malformed .faf), permissions, or whether anything is written back, so an agent cannot fully predict behavior on edge cases.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and return contents, then the usage hint. 'Project DNA' is mildly informal but not wasteful; nothing is padded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description still summarizes the parsed structure. For a one-parameter read tool this is nearly sufficient, with only the default-path behavior left unstated.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single 'path' parameter, so the description must compensate and only partially does: it names the file type but never mentions that a path can be supplied or that it defaults to 'project.faf'. Calling the tool with no arguments is the common case and its behavior is never explained.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a concrete verb and resource (read project DNA from a .faf file) and names what it returns (project info, stack, preferences, scoring data). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings that also read a .faf file, such as faf_validate or faf_score, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Use this as the first step to understand any FAF-enabled project' gives a clear sequencing/call-context directive rather than leaving usage to inference. However, it names no alternative (faf_validate, faf_score, faf_discover) and states no when-not conditions, so it lacks true routing guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.